You are in:
FiReControl: have your say
According to Fire Minister Bob Neil MP the priority now for fire and rescue authorities is to review their existing control arrangements in the light of this decision. BAPCO members are encouraged to read this summary of the Consultation and send their thoughts to BAPCO.
This consultation is aimed primarily at members of fire and rescue authorities, fire and rescue services and their representative bodies (eg Local Government Association, Chief Fire Officers Association, Fire Brigades Union). Suppliers in the fire and rescue industry also have an interest. This consultation will run until 5pm on 8 April 2011.
Consultation questions
Section 3 – Lessons from FiReControl
- Q1 What lessons do you think we can learn from FiReControl – both positive and negative?
Section 4 – Defining the policy objectives
- Q2 Are resilience, enhanced technology and efficiency still as important today as they were when the FiReControl project was initiated? If not what has changed?
- Q3 Which aspects of resilience are most important for control services?
- Q4 Do you think that there is a role for central government in supporting technical enhancements in fire and rescue control rooms – and, if so, what should this be?
- Q5 Do you think that there is a role for central government in helping fire and rescue authorities to achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of control services – and, if so, what should this be?
Section 5 – Central government support
- Q6 Which of the approaches (or combination of approaches) for the delivery of control services set out in Section 5 (below) would provide the best outcome for the fire and rescue Community and the public? Please give reasons for your choice.
Section 6 – Funding choices
- Q7 Do you agree that the right funding priorities are set out in Section 6 (below) and do you have any comments on the order in which these are presented?
- Q8 Which of the technical options for Firelink (see Annex C, below) would best meet fire and rescue service needs? Please give reasons for your choice.
Section 5
5.6 This way of thinking about decentralisation can help us to think about what the future organisation of control services should look like:
• If we believe that the current system of controls is able to meet current and future call-handling and mobilisation needs, including the handling of major incidents, then there can be no justification for central intervention. Individual fire and rescue authorities should be left to develop their own control solutions in line with their own Integrated Risk Management Plans (a ‘rights’ approach)
• If we consider that greater collaboration is needed to improve resilience (for example, enabling fire and rescue services to share data, answer each others’ calls and mobilise resources), then some central intervention may be needed. This could include the provision of financial support or the making available of core products or assets originally procured for FiReControl (a ‘localist’ approach)
• If we think that a consistent level of resilience is required in all areas of the country, then a national approach will be more appropriate. A national approach could take the form of a national networked system such as FiReControl (a ‘universal’ approach)
• Or, alternatively, it could be achieved through the adoption of a common set of standards that have been set at a national level. How these can be met would then be a local choice (a ‘bespoke’ approach). This scenario could be combined with any of the others to increase resilience.
Section 6
Agreeing funding priorities
6.12 In the current economic climate, it is highly unlikely that all requests for funding can be met. Funding priorities will need to be agreed which achieve a balance between operational need, fairness and value for the taxpayer. The amount of funding available for upgrading control services will be strongly influenced by fire and rescue authorities’ decisions on the use of control centre buildings and moving to shared control services.
6.13 The Department’s current thinking is that the order of priorities should be:
• completing the installation of Firelink as the top priority
• funding restructuring costs to support shared control services
• funding technical enhancements to improve resilience
• funding accommodation or control room infrastructure costs arising out of delays to FiReControl.
Annex C
Summary of technical options for further use of Firelink
Introduction
With the exception of London, and two fire and rescue services that were already users of the Airwave network, a simplified solution was installed in all other control rooms in England using SAN-I equipment. This was intended to be an interim solution, pending migration of the fire and rescue services to the new control centres where full, resilient access to Firelink would be provided. The SAN-I solution has proved to be effective in operation, albeit providing only basic voice functionality. With the cancellation of the FiReControl project, fire and rescue services could gain further benefits from the Firelink system through a number of options. These are described below. The list of options is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to illustrate the choices that could be made in terms of cost and functionality.
Option 1 – Do the minimum and continue with the existing solution
In this option, the SAN-I equipment would be retained, and any remaining technical issues resolved. No changes to existing control room or mobile data systems would be required. This is the lowest cost option but delivers no additional benefits to the fire and rescue services. The control rooms concerned would continue to have no access to Firelink data services nor to advanced voice functionality – although mobile data could be supported using commercial networks. The connection would remain less resilient than a full networked connection to Firelink.
Option 2 – Upgrade the existing solution to support data
In this option, the SAN-I equipment would be upgraded to allow access to Firelink data services. To make beneficial use of the Firelink data services, upgrades would be required to both control room systems (provision of a mobile data gateway and associated changes to the mobilisation system) and mobile data systems on fire appliances. This option would provide the fire and rescue services with a resilient mobile data bearer with high geographic coverage – for example, for reporting the status and location of appliances, and for transmitting mobilisation and incident messages. The fire and rescue services would not have access to advanced voice functionality, and the connection would remain less resilient than a full networked connection.
Option 3 – Implement a full networked voice and data connection to Firelink in existing control rooms
In this option, the SAN-I equipment would be replaced with a networked connection to Firelink, offering full, resilient access to Firelink voice and data functionality. Significant upgrades would be required to control room systems (including an upgrade or replacement of the integrated communication control system (ICCS), provision of a mobile data gateway and associated changes to the mobilisation system) and to mobile data systems on fire appliances. This option would allow fire and rescue services to take full advantage of the features provided by Firelink. However, this is a relatively high cost option – although the cost would be reduced if fewer control rooms needed to be equipped (for example, through fire and rescue services sharing control rooms).
Option 4 – Use Firelink connections in control centre buildings
Network connections to Firelink are installed and tested in four control centre buildings – South West, East Midlands, North East and London. In West Midlands and South East the connections are expected to be available in 2011. The remainder could be made available in 2012. These connections offer full, resilient access to Firelink voice and data functionality. Where one or more fire and rescue service choose to re-locate their control rooms to one of the new control centre buildings, the Firelink connections would be available for use. For other services that do not occupy the control centre buildings, one of the other options would need to be adopted.
Send your feedback to Tony Antoniou: antoniout@yahoo.com
The full consultation can be downloaded below.
